Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Truths That Transform

Transformers tops the charts. More from the New York Times.

Ride It Out

Will a voluntary desegregation program in Massachusetts have to change in the wake of a recent Supreme Court ruling? And if so, what's wrong with that?

Big Things Poppin'

It's fairly obvious that there's no turning back for Fred Thompson at this point...

UPDATE: Will Thompson be able to woo Christian conservatives?

Jesusland

Sen. Hillary Clinton plays the faith card. What is she, a Republican?!

Ch-Ch-Changes

The legacy of the 2000 election.

Taking It Back

If professional wrestling is to survive in the wake of the Chris Benoit tragedy, it would behoove World Wrestling Entertainment impresario Vincent K. McMahon to look to the past—specifically the era that immediately preceded his national expansion in the mid-1980s.

You didn’t hear about steroid scandals or premature deaths in the late-1970s and early-1980s, when Bob Backlund reigned as WWE champion. The former NCAA Division II amateur wrestling champion became a major star in the mid-‘70s, drawing a large fanbase with his “All-American” persona and tremendous in-ring ability. In February 1978, McMahon’s father, then-WWE owner Vincent J. McMahon, made Backlund his organization’s top star; Backlund defeated “Superstar” Billy Graham in Madison Square Garden to begin a nearly six-year reign as WWE champion.

Backlund wasn’t the largest, most muscular, or most charismatic wrestler, but he sold out arenas throughout the Northeast with his natural talent. Backlund delivered several high-quality matches against a wide variety of opponents; by the early-1980s, he had clearly joined the ranks of the best performers in wrestling history.

The younger McMahon purchased WWE from his father in 1982; by the end of 1983, he had to decided to pursue a different direction. Backlund’s clean-living image was fine for the late-‘70s and early-‘80s, but McMahon felt he needed a different champion for the MTV era—a muscular Californian named Terry Bollea, better known as Hulk Hogan.  Backlund lost the title in December 1983, and left WWE in the summer of 1984.

During Hogan’s tenure as WWE champion, Vince seemed determined to undo every aspect of the Backlund era, promoting extremely muscular wrestlers in his main events and placing technically skilled Backlund-style competitors in mid-card slots. However, in the early-1990s, WWE found itself embroiled in a steroid scandal, and McMahon was forced to promote smaller, athletic wrestlers as main-eventers.

It was around this time that Backlund, who had left the business entirely in the late-1980s, returned to WWE. Despite being in his mid-40s, Backlund’s athletic skills remained intact. Initially, McMahon seemed reluctant to return Backlund to main-event status, but in the summer of 1994, McMahon gave the former champ a second shot in the spotlight, this time as a villainous character disturbed by what he perceived to be American moral decline. The new gimmick was so successful that McMahon even gave Backlund a short-lived second reign as champion in November 1994.

Backlund remained with WWE until 1997; he returned for a few weeks in early-2000, playing an “advisor” to former Olympic gold medalist Kurt Angle. While he’s known among younger wrestling fans for the comedic aspects of the character he played in his most recent WWE stints, older fans still remember the excellence he displayed between 1978 and 1983.

While the post-Backlund era was a tremendously successful one for McMahon from a fiscal standpoint, it seems obvious that he would have avoided some of the more sordid scandals affiliated with WWE had he remained committed to promoting Backlund-style wrestlers. How many scandals affected WWE during the mid-1990s, when McMahon had to promote the likes of Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels, both of whom are heirs to Backlund’s legacy?

With the media aggressively searching for the latest new development in the Benoit tragedy, I wouldn’t be surprised if McMahon is asking himself if things would have been different had he not decided to promote steroid-stacked strongmen instead of true athletes like Backlund. I wouldn’t be surprised if McMahon admits to himself that things would have been different…and, perhaps, even better.

Using Protection

A federal appeals court throws out a lawsuit challenging President Bush's terrorism surveillance program. More from Power Line, the Washington Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe and the New York Times.

The Far Side

An aspiring Boston attorney sues the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the state Board of Bar Examiners, alleging that it is illegal to compel him to answer a gay-marriage-themed question on the state bar exam. Something tells me he's not going to win...

White Flag

Sen. Pete Domenici says he's not Bush's friend, demanding that the Iraq War come to an end. It's one thing if you always thought this war was a sin--but what's with all these war supporters suddenly deciding we can't win? More from Redstate.com, William Kristol and Hugh Hewitt.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times.

Holy Crap!

I'm begging the mainstream press to stop running these idiotic race-obsessed articles about Barack Obama. Lord love a duck...

Yesterday Once More

Here’s a 2008 scenario that we can’t rule out: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College.

In these extremely partisan times, it’s not beyond possibility that the ’08 election could end with just as much controversy as the 2000 election—only this time with a different party emerging triumphant. What effect will a second “disputed finish” have on American politics?

Hopefully a negligible one, if the Republicans are wise. In the event that Sen. Clinton does indeed become President thanks solely to the Electoral College, it would behoove the GOP not to demonstrate the same personal contempt towards Clinton that many Democrats demonstrated towards President Bush in the wake of his victory.

The passion with which Bush is despised by the left is directly related to the conclusion of the 2000 campaign. Every epithet, every negative editorial, every caustic speech about Bush is motivated by the left’s inability to view the man as anything other than a “court-appointed” President. This heightened hostility has damaged our discourse—and it would be a mistake for the right to walk down this bitter path if Clinton wins under similar circumstances.

Republicans are just as irritated by Clinton’s personality as Democrats are by Bush’s—and if Clinton scores an Electoral College win, the temptation to engage in over-the-top rhetoric about her will be all but irresistible for the right. However, having condemned Democrats for irresponsible anti-Bush rhetoric, Republicans will come across as the ultimate hypocrites if they use incendiary invective in the wake of an unusual Clinton victory.

This is not to say that there shouldn’t be vigorous debate during a potential second Clinton Administration—only that the right should recall the most loathsome examples of anti-Bush criticism and make a conscious effort to avoid such wretched excess. If Clinton loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College, Republicans will have little to savor—but they must remain on their best behavior.

The End Of Racism

As a result of last week's trailblazing Supreme Court ruling, a Massachusetts suburb may be forced to discontinue a controversial race-based school assignment policy. More from the Boston Globe.

Liberty's Call

President Bush stands by his actions in Iraq. More from National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

A Matter Of Trust

Is it possible for black people to trust white people in the United States?

As much as I detest the rhetoric of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, it unfortunately must be acknowledged that both men have merely seized upon feelings of racial resentment that existed long before the birth of either man. While conservatives are right to denounce the "racial grievance industry," the industry was "profitable" long before Jackson and Sharpton became co-CEOs.

Sadly, black skepticism about white intentions has existed for so long in this country it can be considered a tradition. Even after slavery's official end (brought about by a Republican, let us never forget), black Americans suffered through an additional one hundred years of segregation, discrimination, and being looked upon as "outsiders." It may be that the psychological wounds of slavery have long since healed--but that the psychological wounds of Jim Crow are still fresh among many black Americans. 

I've often condemned what I regard as "psychological segregation"--the distrust that many black Americans still have for whites, some four decades after the civil rights movement. This "psychological segregation" manifests itself in such things as all-black dorms at predominately white colleges and universities, lack of social interaction with whites away from the workplace, etc. While "psychological segregation" should not be looked upon favorably by society, it regrettably cannot be condemned out of existence.

We still have a race problem in our society. It's nowhere near as bad as the left insists it is, but it's hard to deny that racial bitterness still exists. The memories are still fresh in too many minds--the over-the-top condemnations of Martin Luther King, the dogs and the hoses and the batons, the stares and the unfriendly gestures, the physical and mental pain. It's still there. It's all there.

As long as that collective memory, that shared experience is there, we can't overcome. Literally, it's all in our heads.

There is no elixir, no miracle care that will strike clean the memories of past racism from black Americans. For so many, the images of past hate and bigotry play over and over like a constantly repeating DVD. So many black Americans remain chained to the past--and there's no key that will loosen them from this bondage.

So what's the solution? How do we as a society rid ourselves of this cancer called "psychological segregation"?

The only solution that I can see is time. Generational change is the only thing that will allow us to move past the pain of decades ago.

I don't think it's possible for those who were born before the civil rights movement, and who bore witness to the hate generated during the destruction of Jim Crow, to ever move beyond "psychological segregation." Those scars of war are permanent. However, I do think it's possible for those born after the civil rights movement to move us toward a legitimate colorblind society.

Just as black distrust of whites was the result of negative experiences, black trust of whites can be the result of positive experiences. Those who were born after the civil rights movement have also run into racism, but never on the scale of what their parents and grandparents went through. They do not have an institutionalized memory of institutionalized racism--thus, they will not automatically assume white dishonesty.

Many white Americans in this country sincerely want to move beyond race, but because of past state-sanctioned bigotry, many black Americans don't take their sincerity at face value. This is the case now--but as more and more blacks born after the civil rights movement find common ground with whites, the situation will be different a generation or two from now.

The Last Song

Legendary singer Beverly Sills passes away at 78. More from the New York Times.

FLY LIKE AN EAGLE

In an act sure to drive Democrats crazy, President Bush commutes the prison sentence of former White House aide Lewis Libby. More from the Washington Post, Redstate.com, Dean Barnett, Matt Margolis, the Washington Times and Power Line.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times, Michael Graham, Wall Street Journal and National Review.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the AP, Power Line, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Monica Crowley, the Washington Post, the Washington Times and the New York Times.

THIRD UPDATE: More from the Washington Times.

Dancing Upon His Grave

If you want to know why Republicans believe in the concept of the "liberal media," all you have to do is read this pathetic Washington Post article.

UPDATE: You can also throw in this pointless New York Times article on Fred Thompson.

SECOND UPDATE: The Boston Globe declares war on Thompson.